What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292459 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5292459?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Landlord'S Expenses - S 44A: $270.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292459?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292459?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12384284-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292459 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5292459?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Landlord'S Expenses - S 44A: $270.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292459?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292459?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12384284-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Balmore Crescent, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5292459 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5292459 — net $243.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Landlord's expenses - s 44A	$270.59		Landlord's expenses - s 44A
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$270.59	$27.00
Net award	$243.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$243.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Reagan And Dina San Gabriel Ofeina Datt $243.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
For ease if reference I will refer to the parties in the singular. TENANT’S CLAIM
The tenant has applied for an order with respect to disputed landlord’s expenses related to the early termination of the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord did not file a cross-application for their expenses, rent arrears or the bond.
Both parties agreed the way I should approach this matter is to make an order as to what the tenant should pay the landlord in terms of the landlord’s reasonable expenses resulting from the tenant terminating the fixed-term early and make no further order. There appears to be a nominal amount of rent arrears and the bond is held with the Bond Centre.
It will be for the parties to finalise the Bond Refund form by agreement and send this to the Bond Centre to reflect this decision or file a further application to the Tribunal if there is no agreement about how the Bond is to be distributed or if there are any other claims.

RELEVANT LAW

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
Section 44A of the RTA relates to the recovery of a landlord’s expenses on early termination of a fixed-term tenancy. The provision says: 44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord (1)A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2)A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. (3)A landlord who takes any step to recover expenses referred to in subsection (1) without providing an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant— (a)commits an unlawful act; and (b)commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.
It considering what expenses can be considered to be reasonably incurred I have reviewed a number of recent Tribunal decisions on this issue. Other Tribunal decisions have said: a. Section 44A requires at itemised account for actual expenses incurred that can be evidenced. This does not include a “finder’s fee” or “admin fee”. 1 b. Section 44A allows landlord to claim from the tenant the actual costs in finding the replacement tenant, but they must be the actual cost, not a 1 Tenant v Halamish Rental Limited [2025] NZTT 4880900 nominal charge, or standard fee. What the landlord needs to do, is incur the cost, and then provide an itemised account to the tenant to pay those expenses, which the landlord has incurred. If the tenant does not pay that account, then the landlord can pursue a claim for those charges in the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the claim where the landlord was seeking to recover a nominal standard charge. 2 c. A third of the amount claimed for expenses is reasonable where two- thirds of the tenancy period had passed, and the landlord would have been liable for the full cost of re-tenanting the property in a few months’ time. 3 d. To be recoverable, expenses need to be those actually incurred by the landlord and must have resulted from the early termination of the tenancy. Expenses such as advertising, that would have been incurred when the fixed term tenancy ended are not recoverable. The Tribunal said the loss to the landlord in incurring such expenses three months earlier is negligible. The Tribunal considered it is the extra work by a landlord/property manager resulting from the tenant’s request to end a tenancy early that is a recoverable expense. 4
In addition, in can be helpful to look at recent amounts ordered for landlord’s expenses: • [2025] NZTT 5286863 - Tenancy that ended six months into a 12- month fixed – term - $408.37. • [2025] NZTT 4998334 - Tenancy ended 2 months into a 12-month fixed term - $575. • [2025] NZTT 5237515 - Tenancy ended 10 months before end of fixed- term - $741. • [2025] NZTT 5281287, 5277419 - Tribunal had previously ordered break lease fees of $560.44 - $953.41. • [2025] NZTT 5244693 - Tenant changed their mind before moving into premises - $316.25. • [2025] NZTT 5265259 - Tenant sought to end tenancy before it commenced - $515.34. 2 Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Hongying Xie v Fortune and Williams [2025] NZTT 5248456 at 17-18. 3 Rental Hq Limited Acting Agent For Yuming Lin v Tatana and Tatana [2024] NZTT 4598793. 4 Landlord v Tenant [2024] NZTT 4945795. • [2024] NZTT 4960257 - Landlord claimed $1,075.00 – amount ordered reduced to reflect time not itemised - $800.
These decisions are not binding but provide guidance when assessing a claim for reasonable expenses pursuant to section 44A of the RTA.

THIS CASE

On 27 February 2025 the tenant signed a “Application for early release on fixed term tenancy” document in which the tenant agreed to pay the costs reasonably incurred resulting from the early release transaction.
New tenants were found, and the tenancy ended on 18 April 2025.
The landlord claims $1,543.04 as a “break lease fee”. This amount had been reduced from an original claim provided by the landlord for $2,035.32.
I consider the proximity to the end of the fixed term is relevant in this case. The landlord should have anticipated that there will likely be expenses incurred near the end of the fixed term, particularly given the tenant had indicated to the landlord well in advance that the tenant’s would not be continuing with the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord has claimed expenses that would be incurred at the end of the tenancy, and I consider they cannot be said to be expenses incurred as a result of the early termination of the tenancy.
The itemised expenses that I consider the landlord cannot reasonably claim the tenant is liable for are: a. Ingoing and outgoing inspections - $124.76 b. Other miscellaneous disbursements (Meth test)- $335.92
The itemised expenses I consider are reasonable are: a. Advertising - $309.58 b. Viewings for prospective tenants - $239.28. c. Background and credit checking - $38.50. d. Application and reference screening - $90. e. Completing tenancy agreement - $90. f. General administration (reflecting additional work by the property manager on charged to the owner)- $315. Total – 1082.36.
I reduce this amount by 3/4 to reflect that the tenancy ended in April 2025 and the 12-month fixed term would have ended in June 2025 in any event and that the General administration fee included “Completing this Account Expenses template and general processing of the break lease” of $90, where I note above the itemised expenses included expenses unrelated to the early termination of the fixed term. The total payable by the tenant is $270.59.

FILING FEE

As the tenant has been partly successful in their claim, I make an order that they are reimbursed the filing fee of $27.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression and as they have been successful in the claim, I make an order suppressing the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5292459 — net $243.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Landlord's expenses - s 44A	$270.59		Landlord's expenses - s 44A
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$270.59	$27.00
Net award	$243.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$243.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Reagan And Dina San Gabriel Ofeina Datt $243.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
For ease if reference I will refer to the parties in the singular. TENANT’S CLAIM
The tenant has applied for an order with respect to disputed landlord’s expenses related to the early termination of the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord did not file a cross-application for their expenses, rent arrears or the bond.
Both parties agreed the way I should approach this matter is to make an order as to what the tenant should pay the landlord in terms of the landlord’s reasonable expenses resulting from the tenant terminating the fixed-term early and make no further order. There appears to be a nominal amount of rent arrears and the bond is held with the Bond Centre.
It will be for the parties to finalise the Bond Refund form by agreement and send this to the Bond Centre to reflect this decision or file a further application to the Tribunal if there is no agreement about how the Bond is to be distributed or if there are any other claims.

RELEVANT LAW

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
Section 44A of the RTA relates to the recovery of a landlord’s expenses on early termination of a fixed-term tenancy. The provision says: 44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord (1)A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2)A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. (3)A landlord who takes any step to recover expenses referred to in subsection (1) without providing an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant— (a)commits an unlawful act; and (b)commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.
It considering what expenses can be considered to be reasonably incurred I have reviewed a number of recent Tribunal decisions on this issue. Other Tribunal decisions have said: a. Section 44A requires at itemised account for actual expenses incurred that can be evidenced. This does not include a “finder’s fee” or “admin fee”. 1 b. Section 44A allows landlord to claim from the tenant the actual costs in finding the replacement tenant, but they must be the actual cost, not a 1 Tenant v Halamish Rental Limited [2025] NZTT 4880900 nominal charge, or standard fee. What the landlord needs to do, is incur the cost, and then provide an itemised account to the tenant to pay those expenses, which the landlord has incurred. If the tenant does not pay that account, then the landlord can pursue a claim for those charges in the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the claim where the landlord was seeking to recover a nominal standard charge. 2 c. A third of the amount claimed for expenses is reasonable where two- thirds of the tenancy period had passed, and the landlord would have been liable for the full cost of re-tenanting the property in a few months’ time. 3 d. To be recoverable, expenses need to be those actually incurred by the landlord and must have resulted from the early termination of the tenancy. Expenses such as advertising, that would have been incurred when the fixed term tenancy ended are not recoverable. The Tribunal said the loss to the landlord in incurring such expenses three months earlier is negligible. The Tribunal considered it is the extra work by a landlord/property manager resulting from the tenant’s request to end a tenancy early that is a recoverable expense. 4
In addition, in can be helpful to look at recent amounts ordered for landlord’s expenses: • [2025] NZTT 5286863 - Tenancy that ended six months into a 12- month fixed – term - $408.37. • [2025] NZTT 4998334 - Tenancy ended 2 months into a 12-month fixed term - $575. • [2025] NZTT 5237515 - Tenancy ended 10 months before end of fixed- term - $741. • [2025] NZTT 5281287, 5277419 - Tribunal had previously ordered break lease fees of $560.44 - $953.41. • [2025] NZTT 5244693 - Tenant changed their mind before moving into premises - $316.25. • [2025] NZTT 5265259 - Tenant sought to end tenancy before it commenced - $515.34. 2 Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Hongying Xie v Fortune and Williams [2025] NZTT 5248456 at 17-18. 3 Rental Hq Limited Acting Agent For Yuming Lin v Tatana and Tatana [2024] NZTT 4598793. 4 Landlord v Tenant [2024] NZTT 4945795. • [2024] NZTT 4960257 - Landlord claimed $1,075.00 – amount ordered reduced to reflect time not itemised - $800.
These decisions are not binding but provide guidance when assessing a claim for reasonable expenses pursuant to section 44A of the RTA.

THIS CASE

On 27 February 2025 the tenant signed a “Application for early release on fixed term tenancy” document in which the tenant agreed to pay the costs reasonably incurred resulting from the early release transaction.
New tenants were found, and the tenancy ended on 18 April 2025.
The landlord claims $1,543.04 as a “break lease fee”. This amount had been reduced from an original claim provided by the landlord for $2,035.32.
I consider the proximity to the end of the fixed term is relevant in this case. The landlord should have anticipated that there will likely be expenses incurred near the end of the fixed term, particularly given the tenant had indicated to the landlord well in advance that the tenant’s would not be continuing with the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord has claimed expenses that would be incurred at the end of the tenancy, and I consider they cannot be said to be expenses incurred as a result of the early termination of the tenancy.
The itemised expenses that I consider the landlord cannot reasonably claim the tenant is liable for are: a. Ingoing and outgoing inspections - $124.76 b. Other miscellaneous disbursements (Meth test)- $335.92
The itemised expenses I consider are reasonable are: a. Advertising - $309.58 b. Viewings for prospective tenants - $239.28. c. Background and credit checking - $38.50. d. Application and reference screening - $90. e. Completing tenancy agreement - $90. f. General administration (reflecting additional work by the property manager on charged to the owner)- $315. Total – 1082.36.
I reduce this amount by 3/4 to reflect that the tenancy ended in April 2025 and the 12-month fixed term would have ended in June 2025 in any event and that the General administration fee included “Completing this Account Expenses template and general processing of the break lease” of $90, where I note above the itemised expenses included expenses unrelated to the early termination of the fixed term. The total payable by the tenant is $270.59.

FILING FEE

As the tenant has been partly successful in their claim, I make an order that they are reimbursed the filing fee of $27.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression and as they have been successful in the claim, I make an order suppressing the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292459 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Balmore Crescent, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292459 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Balmore Crescent, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LAW

THIS CASE

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LAW

THIS CASE

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions